8084 mod 6 blog

Candyy31

RubricDetailBlackboardLearn.html

Home >Education homework help >8084 mod 6 blog

Rubric Detail

Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric's layout.

Content

Name: EDDD_8084_Module6_Blog_Rubric

	Novice	Emerging	Proficient	Advanced
Initial Post	Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) - 3.45 (34.5%) The post: -partially addresses the discussion/blog prompt. -demonstrates little evidence of reflection; resources minimally support the post or are inappropriate or missing. -lacks both clarity and organization. Errors in grammar, mechanics, or APA make the post difficult to read. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 3.5 (35%) - 3.95 (39.5%) The post: -addresses the prompt in a cursory manner. -demonstrates evidence of reflection and includes a related resource. -lacks clarity and/or organization. Significant errors in grammar, mechanics, or APA are present. Citations and references are missing or lack relevance. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 4 (40%) - 4.45 (44.5%) The post: -addresses the prompt in a complete and logical manner. -demonstrates critical analysis, reflection, and incorporation of resources. -is generally clear. A few minor errors in grammar, mechanics, or APA are present. Relevant citations and references are provided in accordance with instructor guidelines. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 4.5 (45%) - 5 (50%) The post: -fully addresses the prompt in depth and with supporting detail and/or examples. -demonstrates extensive critical analysis, reflection, and incorporation of appropriate and illuminating resources. -is clear and well organized and adheres to Walden’s standards for scholarly writing. There are virtually no errors in grammar, mechanics, or APA format. Relevant citations and references are provided in accordance with instructor guidelines. Feedback:
Response Posts	Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) - 3.45 (34.5%) Responses: -provide irrelevant feedback to colleagues. -demonstrate limited evidence of reflection as a result of collegial interaction. -lack both clarity and organization. Errors in grammar, mechanics, or APA make posts difficult to read. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 3.5 (35%) - 3.95 (39.5%) Responses: -provide constructive feedback to colleagues. -demonstrate evidence of reflection as a result of collegial interaction. -lack clarity and/or organization. Significant errors in grammar, mechanics, or APA are present. Citations and references are missing or lack relevance. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 4 (40%) - 4.45 (44.5%) Responses: -provide specific and constructive feedback to colleagues. -demonstrate evidence of reflection and personal learning as a result of collegial interaction. -are generally clear. A few minor errors in grammar, mechanics, or APA are present. Relevant citations and references are provided in accordance with instructor guidelines. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 4.5 (45%) - 5 (50%) Responses: -provide specific, constructive, and insightful feedback to colleagues. -demonstrate evidence of critical analysis, reflection, and personal learning as a result of collegial interaction. -are well organized and adhere to Walden’s standards for scholarly writing. There are virtually no errors in, grammar, mechanics, or APA format. Relevant citations and references are provided in accordance with instructor guidelines. Feedback:

Show Descriptions Show Feedback

Initial Post--

Levels of Achievement: Novice 0 (0%) - 3.45 (34.5%) The post: -partially addresses the discussion/blog prompt. -demonstrates little evidence of reflection; resources minimally support the post or are inappropriate or missing. -lacks both clarity and organization. Errors in grammar, mechanics, or APA make the post difficult to read. Emerging 3.5 (35%) - 3.95 (39.5%) The post: -addresses the prompt in a cursory manner. -demonstrates evidence of reflection and includes a related resource. -lacks clarity and/or organization. Significant errors in grammar, mechanics, or APA are present. Citations and references are missing or lack relevance. Proficient 4 (40%) - 4.45 (44.5%) The post: -addresses the prompt in a complete and logical manner. -demonstrates critical analysis, reflection, and incorporation of resources. -is generally clear. A few minor errors in grammar, mechanics, or APA are present. Relevant citations and references are provided in accordance with instructor guidelines. Advanced 4.5 (45%) - 5 (50%) The post: -fully addresses the prompt in depth and with supporting detail and/or examples. -demonstrates extensive critical analysis, reflection, and incorporation of appropriate and illuminating resources. -is clear and well organized and adheres to Walden’s standards for scholarly writing. There are virtually no errors in grammar, mechanics, or APA format. Relevant citations and references are provided in accordance with instructor guidelines. Feedback:

Response Posts--

Levels of Achievement: Novice 0 (0%) - 3.45 (34.5%) Responses: -provide irrelevant feedback to colleagues. -demonstrate limited evidence of reflection as a result of collegial interaction. -lack both clarity and organization. Errors in grammar, mechanics, or APA make posts difficult to read. Emerging 3.5 (35%) - 3.95 (39.5%) Responses: -provide constructive feedback to colleagues. -demonstrate evidence of reflection as a result of collegial interaction. -lack clarity and/or organization. Significant errors in grammar, mechanics, or APA are present. Citations and references are missing or lack relevance. Proficient 4 (40%) - 4.45 (44.5%) Responses: -provide specific and constructive feedback to colleagues. -demonstrate evidence of reflection and personal learning as a result of collegial interaction. -are generally clear. A few minor errors in grammar, mechanics, or APA are present. Relevant citations and references are provided in accordance with instructor guidelines. Advanced 4.5 (45%) - 5 (50%) Responses: -provide specific, constructive, and insightful feedback to colleagues. -demonstrate evidence of critical analysis, reflection, and personal learning as a result of collegial interaction. -are well organized and adhere to Walden’s standards for scholarly writing. There are virtually no errors in, grammar, mechanics, or APA format. Relevant citations and references are provided in accordance with instructor guidelines. Feedback: